Warren, so courageously backboned in opposing Obama's Wall
Street revolving-door cabinet nominees, or his blood sacrifice of the 99% to
the corporate Moloch called TPP, instantly devolves into a quivering lower
invertebrate when criticizing Hillary is concerned. And almost as if receiving
their marching (or rather, slithering) orders from Liz, every single
Congressional Democrat reputed progressive--the donkey party's fabled "Warren
wing"--unanimously complies.

Of course, Bill Clinton's death toll consisted of mere foreigners, which explains why Americans--Warren
and her wing included--largely don't know and don't care. But if anything
happened to red-blooded American Warren, not even vulnerable to Obama's name
and ancestry issues, people would care.
And many Congressional Democrats, not just Warren wingers, would care deeply, since Warren and her progressive
wing are the slender thread maintaining rank-and-file progressives' faltering
allegiance to the Democratic Party--a party even veteran Democratic operative Bill
Curry rightly describes as having lost its soul.

So when Warren and her "wing"--from any motive--show signs of kowtowing without the faintest criticism
to oligarch wet dream Clinton, they dangerously fray the slender thread holding
progressives in the party. And focusing on a far more plausible motive than
"Clinton mafia" death threats for sparing Clinton all criticism--like political
cowardice about publicly offending or devaluing a woman whose nomination they
deem inevitable--paints their behavior in a worse,
not better, light. For intimidation by threats of murder or mayhem would be
forgivable; craven unwillingness to take political
risk in a supposedly progressive party shamelessly salaaming to oligarch donors
and their agendas is not. If Warren
and her wing dare not criticize Clinton now
on behalf of their own principles when she as a candidate is vulnerable--and
potentially far more vulnerable with
Bernie Sanders, an infinitely better progressive, as competition--do they
seriously expect to exercise progressive leverage when she's busily
repaying her dynasty's Wall Street pals' generous donations as president?

With progressives seeking a hostile takeover of the party
from its corporatists, this craven unwillingness to criticize or pressure
Hillary and her Wall Street wing--precisely when the moment is ripe--drives us to
despair of Democrats and deepens our willingness to walk from the party. For
we're not even talking about the radically courageous--and deeply desirable--embrace
of peace and respect for foreign lives now unheard of among Beltway pols. No,
we're talking about caving to Clinton on the Warren wing's own bread-and-butter
economic issues. For when Warren and
company go so far as tolerating without comment the
Clinton campaign's embrace of Citizens
United--surely anathema to their principles--is there any end to the concessions they'll make
to Hillary's corporatists?

- Advertisement -

This fact--"progressive" Democrats' utter unwillingness to
criticize Clinton, even when she violates their most cherished progressive
principles--deserves far more emphasis than it's getting. Indeed, if we had a
free, insightful watchdog press, and a vigilant, public-spirited citizenry to
match, it would be the top headline screaming from every major newspaper. For
it's a big fracking deal. Among other
things, it should have those of us who applauded Bernie Sanders' decision to run
for president as a Democrat furious. Furious enough to leave the party forever
after Hillary defeats Bernie in the primaries--which seems inevitable when highly visible Congressional progressives not only
won't support the candidate who best embodies their principles (Sanders), but
won't breath a word of criticism against one who flouts them egregiously on a
daily basis (Clinton).

And in this mass "progressive" jellyfish swarm, the
invertebrate flagrantly setting the spineless tone for all the others is
Warren. Now, disappointing as it is to progressives that she didn't run for
president, no one should be blamed for declining to shoulder such a staggering
responsibility; indeed, glibness about thinking oneself qualified for the job
is probably a pretty fair index that one isn't. Compare Hillary, for example,
who feels not merely qualified but entitled.
Whereas Bernie Sanders was the most reluctant of candidates, evidently thinking
Warren, sharing most of his views and already a Democrat, had better prospects
of beating Hillary for the party nomination; he awaited her definitive refusal
before deciding himself to run. And he clearly did so because he feared no
Democrat with his own name recognition would dare call Hillary out on behalf of
the progressive principles her very existence stymies. And given the
pathetically lukewarm reception of his own candidacy by progressive Democrats,
he evidently was right.

As Democrats' official message shaper, the most flagrant
example of this "pathetically lukewarm reception" for Bernie's candidacy is
Warren herself. In the quintessence of non-probing journalism, with a headline
that amounts to reporting malpractice, the Boston Herald regaled us with the story
"Elizabeth Warren praises Bernie Sanders' prez bid." If only the Herald had
had the decency to place scare quotes around the word "praises." Or if only,
wanting to tell the whole truth tersely, they had written, "Warren damns
Sanders' candidacy with faint praise." For nothing could be chillier and more
distancing--or a better indication native Oklahoman Warren had made the
traditional Puritan-inspired cold-fish Boston Brahmin manner her own--than her
reception of Sanders' candidacy. Indeed, Henry James's lesbian bluestocking feminist
Olive Chancellor of The Bostonians could scarcely have
received her charming, hot-blooded conservative Mississippi cousin Basil
Ransom--daggers-drawn rival for her protegee and
love interest Verena--with more distant, chilly Beantown politeness.

And Warren's latest spineless defense of Clinton--pretending
Clinton's solidly in her camp on fighting TPP fast track--is more nauseating
still for progressives. Sure, in citing a passage buried in Clinton's book Hard Choices against the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) provision--one of the strongest reasons (among many)
for opposing TPP--Warren is on solid factual
ground. But given the serious danger TPP, especially TPP fast track, poses to
our nation, Warren should be furious at
Clinton for not showing the courage of her (supposed) convictions and openly
denouncing TPP fast track, as Bernie Sanders incessantly has. For someone claiming, as Clinton did in her
candidacy announcement, that she
wants to be the "people's champion" (I can still hear the banksters
snigger), she's pretty damn cowardly about openly defending them from a trade
bill progressives almost universally think harms average people gravely. Especially when not just an
argument from her own book, but the populist climate itself, make it
politically risk-free for her to do so. When, as an
article from Salon notes, "the politics and the policy are in perfect
agreement" for Hillary opposing TPP, the hooks of this "people's champion's"
corporate donors must be sunk pretty deep into her soul to keep her from doing
so. And Warren, who evidently takes TPP quite seriously, should be furious with
Clinton that she isn't.

For me, the gravity of the economic issues on which Warren
and the Warren wing give Clinton a free pass tells me that, where Hillary's
concerned, not even they, let alone Clinton, can be counted on the be the
"people's champions." And if not the Warren wing, who among Democrats? Bernie
Sanders? He can't defend us alone, and if Warren and Congressional progressives
simply leave him to swing in the wind, his outsider insurgency against Hillary
and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party has zero chance of success. For those who place hope in the success of
Bernie's "hostile takeover," I'd recommend joining one of the more radical
groups supporting him, of which my daily-growing Pitchforks Against
Plutocracy movement is a fine specimen. But join or not, we strongly urge
that you contact Elizabeth Warren, demanding that she become more openly
critical of Clinton and openly supportive of Sanders. In fact, it would
probably be smart to e-mail her a link to this article.

Patrick Walker is co-founder of Revolt Against Plutocracy (RAP) and the Bernie or Bust movement it spawned. Before that, he cut his activist teeth with the anti-fracking and Occupy Scranton PA movements.
No longer with RAP, he wields his pen (more...)

"Just as The Tipping Point provides an explanation for big changes, Rob Kall offers a unified explanation for the magic behind the success of the biggest tech companies, the Arab Spring, Occupy and the social media revolution An important, big picture, visionary approach weaving together technology, economics, evolution, science and personal relationships -- even happiness -- to describe a wave of change as significant as the invention of the printing press that is well under way -- a wave that could rescue the planet from the top-down system that afflicts the planet."

Thom Hartmann, host of nationally syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, since 2003 and a nightly television show, The Big Picture, since 2008